(I snagged this free poster at the theater yesterday. Here it is on my wall nest to my David Selby autographed Dark Shadows calendar )

I had to dash off yesterday before I could properly finish my Jane Eyre reaction post, but here I am now to remedy the situation. There will be spoilers, and not just of the plot point variety (as I’m fairly certain most people are familiar with the story anyways), but also details about certain choices the filmmakers made in presenting the story.

The skinny: I freaking loved this film.

As I was watching this movie I found myself wishing two things. First, that I was watching it on a computer so I could take screencaps. Right from the opening sequence (which was stunning!) every few seconds my mind was going click, beautiful screencap. Click, beautiful screencap. Click, click, click. This is hands down the most cinematic and visually stunning Jane Eyre I’ve seen. The other thing I was wishing was that I could have erased the story from my mind just long enough to enjoy the film unspoiled. How much would it have killed to watch this movie without knowing the big reveal beforehand, and without knowing how it would end? Of course I’m glad I read the book first, but just in terms of watching the movie, I’m jealous of anyone who got to experience it in that way.One of the interesting things about this screenplay is that it presents events in not-completely-chronological order, a departure from the book that actually serves the film very well. The first thing we see is Jane’s desperate flight from Thornfield. This is a really effective way to establish a connection with the character right off the bat, and the photography of Jane in the wilderness is very dramatic and beautiful. The audience (if they don’t already know) are asking themselves what she’s running from, and why she’s so desperate and devastated. She’s taken in by the Rivers, and as she lies feverish, her mind starts to wander back over the past, and we experience the events of her childhood and of Thornfield as a sort of flashback. Now, purists might not like the liberties taken with chronology, but I think the device works really well here. The time Jane spends with the Rivers always kind of kills the momentum of the story after all the Thornfield drama, and this is a way of breaking it up and making it interesting. It’s also a very dramatic way of introducing the character. And it really doesn’t change the story in any way, just kind of enhances our experience of it.But, the most important thing in a Jane Eyre film is the performances, and these were awesome. While Michael Fassbender’s really too handsome for Rochester, he makes up for it by bringing all the necessary roughness and darkness to the role. (While Toby Stephens was a great Rochester as well, I thought he was just a little too charming.) And Mia Wasikowska was awesome too. I don’t know what she was doing in Alice and Wonderland if she had all this acting talent all along, but I’m just glad she brought her A game to Jane Eyre. Together, she and Michael had good chemistry. You really believed the characters were passionate about one another. Of course the film had to condense the story considerably to fit into two hours. On the whole, this was done extremely well. My favorite scene in the book, for example, is the last time Jane and Rochester speak before she runs away. It’s a long chapter with pages and pages of lengthy dialogue. My favorite scene in the movie was the same one, even though it was only a brief exchange in the film. Though it was short, the script somehow managed to build all the intensity of that long chapter into it, driving all the important points of that pivotal and emotional scene right into my heart. I’d describe it, but I can’t do it justice. Go see the movie.

On the other hand, I think people less intimately familiar with the novel might have been wondering about a few things that were not explained explicitly or in depth. I don’t know though, not being forced to connect the dots myself.

A final word on the 2006 BBC version, only because that one is such a fan favorite and comparisons are inevitable. Both are good, but I prefer this latest film. The BBC one was mostly carried by Ruth and Toby’s chemistry, which was very enjoyable, but I think overall the performances and direction of this movie are better. That’s just my opinion.

So, yeah. I liked this movie. Don’t judge me, but I’m seeing it again tomorrow. (If a friend wants to see it and doesn’t want to go alone, is it not my duty as a friend to accompany her? Totally legit and valid, and not obsessive at all, no siree.) Between this and True Grit, I’ve pretty much gotten two dream adaptations of favorite books in the past four months. Now if only someone would make a movie of Villette.

I figured I couldn’t wait until next Friday to share some of my thoughts about the new Jane Eyre adaptation—that I should do it while it’s fresh.

First off, let me start with this caveat: I’m not a huge fan of Jane Eyre (or anything by any of the Brontë sisters—I think they all had something seriously wrong with them, given how twisted their books/stories are, but that’s just me). However, I had a fabulous time on this girls’ night out with Ruth, Liz, Rachel, and Lori. (Yes, poor Lori is the only one without a blog/website.)

Second, since I’m so familiar with the story, and I assume most of my readers are, there might be (probably will be) spoilers in this “review”; so for anyone who doesn’t know the story but is thinking about going to see the movie, I would recommend it. It is highly enjoyable and very well done. And now you probably shouldn’t read the rest of this post.

The CastBefore chatter about this movie started on the blogosphere, I’d never heard of the two lead actors in this adaptation: Michael Fassbender and Mia Wasikowska.

And I have to say, they were very well cast, and I’m looking forward to seeing them in other projects. (Michael Fassbender is interesting looking—from some angles, he reminded me of Aidan Quinn—I think it’s the eyes—and from others, of Leslie Howard.)

There were several other recognizable names (and some not so recognizable faces!) in the supporting cast. The biggest name in this movie has to be Dame Judi Dench as Rochester’s housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax. Her character brought some much-needed humor to the movie. Then there was Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot, Defiance, The Eagle, and Nicholas Nickleby) as St. John Rivers, Tamzin Merchant (Catherine Howard in The Tudors, Georgiana Darcy in Pride & Prejudice 2005) as Mary Rivers, Sally Hawkins (Anne Elliot in Persuasion 2008) as Jane’s aunt Mrs. Reed, Sandy McDade (Margaret Brown in Lark Rise to Candleford) as one of Jane’s school teachers, Imogen Poots (Fanny Knight from Miss Austen Regrets) as Jane’s potential rival Blanche Ingram, and Harry Lloyd, whom both Ruth and I kept thinking looked extremely familiar as Richard Mason, Rochester’s brother-in-law, but who looked so different from his stint as Will Scarlett on the BBC-TV version of Robin Hood a few years ago.

My Viewing ExperienceMaybe it’s because I did already know the story before going into this movie, but I actually found myself paying a lot of attention to the technical aspects of the film—the lighting (very dim/dark, as it would have been in an age when everything was lit by candles, also reflective of the mood of the scenes), the camera work (we were all a little worried at the herky-jerky hand-held camerawork in the first scene—repeated later—when Jane is running away from Thornfield Hall, but it was only for that one scene), the settings (the interiors of the houses were breathtaking down to every last detail!), and the COSTUMES.

Oh, my goodness, the costumes were gorgeous. With this novel having been published in 1847, the costuming was almost from “my” era of 1851—though the influences for the costuming seemed to be a little more early 1840s, with long, straight sleeves on the fancy dresses instead of the more flowing, bell-shaped sleeves of the late 1840s/early 1850s with dropped shoulder seams which emphasized the sloped-shouldered posture that was considered fashionable in that era (which the twenty-first century actresses weren’t able to adopt) and bum-pad petticoats that made the hips stand out (as they did in the 18th century) instead of the more flared look of multiple stiff, starched petticoats and crinolines of the late 40s/early 50s—the look that gave rise to the invention of hoops so that they didn’t have to wear so many petticoats.

But even with the variations from what I expected the costuming to look like, many times in viewing, I found myself thinking, Look at those sleeves! Look at that gathering! Look at that lace! Look at that pin tucking!

The movie itself.I’d read ahead of time that the movie begins with Jane running away from Thornfield. No reason is given for this flight. We just see a young woman, running from an old house in the gray weather. We see her standing at a crossroads waiting for the mail coach. We see her wandering across the moors, sobbing. We then see her pounding on the door of a home in the pouring rain, begging to be let in. And then we see the Riverses take her in and nurse her back to health.

Then, the actual story is told mostly in flashback, beginning with Jane as a child at her aunt’s home being tormented by her male cousin (this was a bit much for me) and then being locked in a room—in which scene they really started playing up the gothic elements of the book. Mixed in with the scenes of Jane’s childhood are her scenes with the Riverses—St. John, Mary, and Diana. Sometimes it seemed like she was telling them her story as she remembered these scenes, while other times it was obvious these were private reflections. The brutality—emotional, spiritual, and physical—at the school Jane attended is shown, along with the trauma of Jane’s losing her best friend to illness. And then she goes to Thornfield.

Once Jane arrives at Thornfield, we lose the flashbackiness of the movie, and it just stays put and moves forward with the story instead of jumping back and forth, which I appreciated as someone who likes a consistent, forward-moving chronology in stories (Lost being a major exception to this preference).

What this theatrical version of the film lost for me was the development of the relationship between Jane and Rochester. They spent so much time on the setup—on the initial scenes of Jane running away and on her childhood—that they didn’t really have time to show how the relationship between Jane and Rochester grew from almost adversarial to passionate. In the film, they were just all of a sudden passionately in love with each other—and it was most unbelievable on Jane’s side, because this version of Rochester had really given no reason for her unswerving loyalty to him.

Also, even though they played up the gothic elements in certain places, the one element they didn’t play up was Bertha. As I recall, Grace Poole, Bertha’s caregiver, is quite visible in the book, and Jane even interacts with her—and it’s Grace Poole who gets blamed for everything weird that happens in the house. (Including when a “savage looking” woman sneaks into Jane’s room the night before the wedding and rips her veil in two.) They also dropped the explanation of Rochester’s marriage to Bertha that Bertha’s family tricked him into marrying her by making sure he only saw her when she was behaving normally and not showing her schizophrenic tendencies. If they truly wanted to highlight the gothic elements of the novel, they missed the boat here.

I’m going to have to pull the book off the shelf and revisit the ending of the novel—because I don’t remember it ending as abruptly as the movie did—kiss, hug, the end.

So, there you have it. My reaction to seeing Jane Eyre. Again, it’s never been one of my favorites, so I apologize for not gushing about it. But it was enjoyable—and I’ve never been to a movie in a theater that packed that stayed so quiet and attentive! All in all, definitely worth seeing if it comes to a theater near you.

It’s strange how well things can stick in your brain. I read “Jane Eyre” when I was a sophomore in high school for my English class. Let’s just say, I did not enjoy it very much. Now here I sit five years later voluntarily writing a review of the latest adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s gothic romance (yes, I learned that while in that high school English class). I was very intrigued going into it this time. I heard that Cary Fukunaga was directing it and that excited me. Fukunaga did 2009’s Sin Nombre, a movie about two people running away from Mexico from very different backgrounds seeking refuge in the United States, which I thought was good and was certainly very intense. Jane Eyre also brings in two blooming stars in Michael Fassbender (Fish Tank, Inglourious Basterds) and Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right) which definitely made me want to see it more.

For those who don’t know, Jane Eyre is the story of a young, orphaned girl who spends her life mistreated by those all around her (imagine it as a dark telling of Cinderella). She holds fast to the little acts of kindness that surround her and is able to survive through her life, which she considers normal. Eventually, she gets hired on as a governess at Thornfield, a property owned by Edward Rochester, to teach a young French girl. When she arrives, she is thrown into the middle of a seemingly haunted mansion and eventually meets the cold, yet vibrant Mr. Rochester. From there the true story unfolds and I’ll just point out that the film is definitely a romance. A romance it is, but it is certainly intriguing. This is a storyline that is very dark and there are plenty of twists and turns and even depth in the relationship.

Fukunaga chooses to intertwine the end of story with that of the beginning throughout the first third of the movie, so that we experience most of Jane’s past in a flashback. It is understandable why she would do this as the book does have four main settings where Jane resides, but in this version it feels a bit rushed and forced. She seems to want to give us a period piece with all the costumes and rhetoric required, but ends up muddling through the plot.

As the film moves along however, it grows better and better. Wasikowska and Fassbender are both wonderful in their bantering and portrayals of two people who are both wounded by things that have happened in their past. Jane tries to shrug off her pain as if that is just how life is, while Mr. Rochester turns bitter and acts out in anger. As they grow and reveal parts of themselves, romance shines. Jane begins to feel love for the first time and becomes truly joyous for the first time in her life, but it wouldn’t be a dark film if it stayed that way would it?

The film cuts out many parts from the novel, but, to its credit, it really does nail the scenes it needs to nail, making it, overall, an effective and enjoyable movie. One that chronicles a romance, that even a romance movie skeptic like myself could find both believable and enjoyable.

I feel as though I've been looking forward to the release of the new Jane Eyre film for ages, and the much longed-for and highly-anticipated release finally, finally arrived yesterday. People, this Jane Eyre was worth the wait, and when it finally expands into wide release, for goodness' sake go! Sure to appeal to die-hard Jane Eyre fans, this film is also a wildly accessible introduction to anyone not familiar with the beloved story.

I'm a huge fan of the 2006 Masterpiece Classic miniseries version of Jane Eyre, starring Toby Stephens as Rochester and Ruth Wilson as Jane. With a script by the brilliant Sandy Welch, that version of Jane Eyre has the luxury of a four-hour runtime wherein the intricacies and detail of Charlotte Bronte's classic novel can be explored on-screen. With a roughly two-hour timeframe with which to work for this new theatrical release, some detail is necessarily sacrificed. But similarly to Focus Features' success in bringing another classic near and dear to my heart to the big screen - Pride and Prejudice in 2005 as compared to the (in my mind, anyway) definitive miniseries from 1995 - this film retains the heart and soul of the novel, the critical story beats necessary to successfully bring Jane's story to life.

For any story detail that might be sacrificed for the sake of a manageable theatrical runtime, director Cary Fukunaga more than makes up for that by retaining the mood and atmosphere of the novel. There's a heavy reliance on the gothic elements Jane Eyre's story. This is aided by the structure of the film. Where most Jane Eyre adaptations are told in a linear fashion, following the structure of the novel from Jane's childhood to her time at Thornfield, this film is largely told in flashback. The movie opens with Jane fleeing Thornfield and Rochester following the revelation of Bertha's existence, and getting lost on the moors until alone and sick she stumbles on the home of the Rivers family. From there, as she recovers, we see her childhood with the Reeds, time at Lowood School, and arrival at Thornfield told in flashback as she recovers. It's an unusual structure, but given the limitations of the film's runtime I think it's an effective way to include as much of Jane's past as possible.

The success of any Jane Eyre adaptation rests, for me, on the casting of Jane and Rochester. More than anything else, more than any other character, more than the setting, I have to click with Jane and Rochester. I have to become as emotionally invested with their love story on-screen as I do when reading the novel. Happily, I absolutely love Mia Wasikowska as Jane and Michael Fassbender as Rochester. Wasikowska first came to my attention when I saw her play Alice in Tim Burton's gorgeous re-imagining of Alice in Wonderland (my review). At 22, she is perhaps the closest in age to Jane in the novel than any other actress who's brought the character to life on-screen. She handles the role masterfully, balancing Jane's youthfulness and maturity with seasoned aplomb. Her best scenes are perhaps the proposal - her transition from disbelief, anger, and frustration with Rochester gradually gives way with glorious abandon when she accepts that he loves her - and the moment when Rochester on his knees is begging her to stay, and she refuses. The strength and emotion with which Wasikowska infuses that scene is breathtakingly powerful. She's definitely an actress to watch.

I loved Michael Fassbender as Rochester. He doesn't quite knock Toby Stephens' portrayal of Bronte's enigmatic leading man from the top spot in my Rochester ranking, but that's in large part due to the fact that he has less screen time to work with. What I wouldn't give to see Fassbender and Wasikowska in a sprawling, four hour version of Jane Eyre. *sigh* The possibilities, oh the possibilities. For a piece that relies on atmosphere as much as this film does, Fassbender embraces his turn as a tortured, Byronic hero with relish. His Rochester has an edgy, dangerous, unpredictable edge, and in his all-too-brief scenes with Jane (I just wanted more...those scenes could've gone on forever), Fassbender has an intense, eager quality, latching onto Jane's every word. She's a puzzle he's desperate to solve, and the energy Fassbender brings to those scenes imbue Rochester's interactions with Jane with a subtlety and a romanticism that I quite simply adored. And of course it didn't hurt that the man has a fabulous voice. The script does him a HUGE favor by retaining much of the novel's most well-known and beloved dialogue, and hearing Fassbender bring that to life worked for me on every level imaginable. And Fassbender can say more with his eyes than most actors could do with pages and pages of dialogue - well played sir, very well played.

It was such a treat to see Judi Dench as Thornfield's housekeeper, Mrs. Fairfax. Dench brought a wonderful warmth to her scenes opposite Wasikowska. Her Mrs. Fairfax is loving, loyal, and capable - and quite long-suffering when it comes to putting up with Rochester's capricious moods. My favorite scene is probably when she meets Jane in the burned-out shell of Thornfield at the end of the film. She's so clearly grateful to see Jane alive and well, and her apology of sorts - assuring Jane that she didn't know Rochester was married, that she would've helped Jane leave Thornfield - was extremely well-played. Though brief, Dench plays Mrs. Fairfax's relationship with Jane with more of a mothering quality than I can recall seeing in prior film versions that I really liked. Who wouldn't want Dame Judi in your corner?

Sally Hawkins was a surprisingly terrifying Mrs. Reed. It's hard to believe that just a few years ago she was playing a romantic lead in the Masterpiece Classic version of Persuasion (my review). I don't know if it was the costumes and hairstyle, or if Hawkins has lost some weight, or a combination of factors, but her face had this awful cadaver-like look that nicely played into disliking the character of Mrs. Reed (as if a viewer needs any help doing that). Speaking of Jane's youth, I will go ahead and mention that Amelia Clarkson's turn as the young Jane was really well done. Not only was she a passing good match for a young Wasikowska, but she was quite impressive as Jane the child. Her strength was wholly believable, and in Jane's scenes at the Reed home and then Lowood, Clarkson had an arresting screen presence. She could definitely be an actress to watch as she grows up and matures.

The Rivers family was made up of a trio of familiar faces. Sister Diana was played by Holliday Granger, who has appeared in everything from Merlin to Any Human Heart. But most memorably for me, she was largely responsible for one of the best Guy-centric episodes in Robin Hood - the season three ep "A Dangerous Deal" (my review). Sister Mary was played by Tamzin Merchant, whose first film role, interestingly enough, was as Georgiana Darcy in the 2005 film version of Pride and Prejudice. The largely thankless role of their clergyman brother St. John Rivers falls to Jamie Bell. Poor Jame. *sigh* I'm a huge fan of his work - he's made memorable appearances in everything from Nicholas Nickleby as Smike, to brother Asael Bielski in Defiance, to Esca in The Eagle. But even he in all his fabulousness can't make St. John any less...well, odd comes to mind. It was interesting to observe the audience's reaction to St. John's high-handed speeches to Jane and expectations of her future in his missionary work. Goodness, even when you know what's coming the urge to smack St. John upside the head is nearly overpowering.

There's one or two more casting point I simply must mention - Bertha's brother, Richard Mason, is played by none other than Robin Hood's own Harry Lloyd, the one-time Will Scarlett. Goodness did he ever look awful and half mad himself like his poor on-screen sister. I also thought that Imogen Poots did a fine job with the role of Blanche Ingram. I cannot TELL you how refreshing it was to see a Blanche who is a brunette - it seems that she's always portrayed as a blonde in film versions of Jane Eyre. Poots may look familiar to fans of the film Me and Orson Welles, where she played Lorelei Lathrop, or Miss Austen Regrets, where she took on the role of Fanny Knight.

The entire film crew, from the art department to the cinematographer to the wardrobe department deserve major kudos for bringing director Fukunaga's moody, absorbing vision of Jane Eyre's world to life. I especially loved all of the Thornfield Hall scenes - this may be my favorite Thornfield ever captured on film. With its rich, dark wood panelling and twisting hallways, this film gives us a worthy gothic setting for Bertha's cries in the night and Rochester's dark moods. And the use of darkness and shadow and light - oh my, every frame of this film is carefully constructed to set the mood and help tell the story.

Dario Marianelli contributed the score, and people it is BRILLIANT. Marianelli also wrote the scores for Atonement and Pride and Prejudice, and given that track record and the work he produced for Jane Eyre, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he wins a third Oscar for his work on this film. He'd better at least be nominated! Instead of featuring piano solos (as he did in Pride and Prejudice), for Jane Eyre Marianelli showcases the violin, which for the record may be my favorite instrument. I don't think anything else could be more suited to bring musical life to Jane and Rochester's world, with its ability to be gorgeous, poignant, and moody, tugging on the heartstrings with every note. This soundtrack features performances by violinist Jack Liebeck, who could easily give Joshua Bell a run for his money after hearing his work on this film. You can purchase the soundtrack on CD or MP3 download through Amazon - if you're a fan of gorgeous film scores as I am, it's a must-have!

I have to talk about the ending of this film, which was definitely unexpected. After obtaining Rochester's location from Mrs. Fairfax, Jane arrives to find him sitting alone and looking suitably moody, with only his dog Pilot for company. I loved the fact that Fassbender's hair was long and wild, and that he sported a beard for the scene - it was an extra touch that made him look rougher and more unkempt than many other Rochesters have played the reunion scene. When Jane tells him she's returned, and they embrace, the moment is gorgeous, shot through with the tension of romantic hopes at long last realized. When Rochester wonders if he's still dreaming, there's this heartbeat of a moment where I swear I didn't breathe, then Jane bids him wake - and the film ends. Unexpectedly abrupt, and the more I've thought about it, the more I have to give the director credit for making such a bold choice to end the film in such a way. That whole last scene was beautifully executed, from Wasikowska and Fassbender's tender performances to the breath-taking use of lighting. It's as if we're finally witnessing Jane and Rochester awake from the tortured dream of life that's conspired to keep them apart - and past that moment everything is left to the imagination of the viewer.

I'm currently re-reading the novel for the first time in several years. Sadly I was unable to get that accomplished prior to seeing this film, but since I plan to see the movie again in theaters if at all possible, hopefully I will have finished the book by then so I can have the entire novel fresh in my mind for further comparisons. Shocking, I know, that I'd be willing to see this film more than once... *wink*

I desperately hope that this ridiculously long, picture-heavy post will inspire you to rush out and see Jane Eyre the second it opens in your area - it is SO worth the ticket price. And thanks to everyone who commented on my last post, kicking off the All Things Jane celebration - I hope I'll be able to spotlight some books and films old-time and new fans of Jane Eyre will enjoy.

Hated by the aunt who is supposed to raise her after her parents die, Jane Eyre has not had an easy go of it. Shipped off to a boarding school that relishes corporal punishment, she suffers a dark childhood where punishment is the norm and her freedoms are completely restricted. Upon graduation from the school, she takes a position as a governess to a young French girl under the care of a wealthy man named Mr. Edward Rochester. Rochester has a pull on Jane, but he is haunted by his past and harbors some dangerous secrets.

Charlotte Bronte’s 19th century book is in many ways the embodiment of the Victorian era. It has something for everyone: Christian piety, Gothic intrigue, love, betrayal, and more than a spot of violence. There are many reasons why Bronte’s novel has managed to stand the test of time, but readers ability to identify with “poor, plain, small and obscure” Jane Eyre is definitely one of them. In this most recent film adaptation, viewers can revel in the dreary landscape and dark corridors of Bronte’s novel as it comes to life on the screen.

Directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga, adapted from a script by Moira Buffini, this adaptation of Jane Eyre trims the book considerably and yet is still an effective and enjoyable adaptation. 21-year-old Mia Wasikowska is mesmerizing as Jane, and Michael Fassbender smolders as the elusive Rochester. A talented supporting cast, including Judy Dench, rounds out the film.

There’s a lot to like here. The cinematography is great, with lots of misty moors, dark forests, and even darker corridors. Fukunaga spends a great deal of time working on the emotional details of the film, and the attraction between Rochester and Jane is palpable. The themes and overall mood of Bronte’s novel have been retained, and the nod to the Gothic style could not be clearer.

The film jumps around in time at the beginning, and this is something that viewers not intimately familiar with the story might struggle with. Although the storyline sorts itself out as Jane becomes more established in Rochester’s mansion, the flashes back and forth in time are likely to frustrate some. What’s more is that much of the building of the relationship of Rochester and Jane has been cut, and so their sudden professions of love felt rushed to me.

However, the story is really about Jane Eyre’s quest to find freedom, and that’s expressed in this film, too. At the end of the day, it’s not about getting the emotionally unavailable guy (although that happens, too) so much as it is about Jane finding her happiness. This film is a testament to that, and it’s pretty enjoyable.

Films like Jane Eyre are tricky. As with any adaptation of a classic text, standing out from the crowd of dozens of other film and TV versions takes real creativity and energy, requiring a firm vision from the filmmakers and a desire to leave a unique, memorable stamp on the material. The film has to exist as its own complete entity separate from the source material, justifying its reason for existence while simultaneously staying true to the spirit of the original work. If done right, even those unfamiliar with the book should be able to enjoy the film and comprehend the main points and messages of the story. Needless to say, it's an extremely tough balancing act. I remember seeing Joe Wright's 2005 Pride and Prejudice film when it came out and loathing it, but after reading the novel in High School, I revisited the film and found it fantastic; it's an example of a film that came very close to achieving that balance, but ultimately didn't quite cut it for those uninitiated with the book. Jane Eyre, on the other hand, is a textbook example of realizing this complex balance. It's not perfect, but when it comes to cinematic retellings of classic (and lengthily) British stories, Jane Eyre does it about as well as one could hope.

I've never read Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, which should tell you right off the bat that the film plays well to the uninitiated. The story - that of a young, emotionally shut-off girl maturing into a confident and whole woman despite severe hardship - is told with extreme clarity and precision, and despite missteps here and there, I was amazed at how much deep, resonant thematic material the film mines in under two hours. I assume some of Bronte's message was lost in the adaptation process, but the story is still incredible food for thought - in particular, themes of class/gender roles and, most powerfully, emotional trauma, come through in extremely effective ways.

Moira Buffini's screenplay is a truly admirable work of art, whittling down Bronte's mammoth tome into a clear and concise story that plays comfortably at under two hours. Yet while the script undoubtedly fuels the film's success, it also creates the most significant problems. The first act plays with the chronology in clever ways and certainly starts the film off strongly, but it doesn't flow into the second, more traditional act entirely smoothly. There's a disconnect between the Jane of the first act and the Jane of the second, once she arrives at Thornfield, that is hard to put one's finger on; the first act spends time establishing the emotional trauma that makes Jane who she is, but if anything, the film could spend more time here and give this establishing material room to breathe so we better understand Jane for the rest of the story. The third act is the most troublesome, as it begins rushing through material too fast to make an impact; one the key twists in the story is that, through inheritance, Jane becomes rich, but as the film presents things - and I'm sure this is different in the book - her wealth is a non-issue. It happens, but is of little import to the direction the film takes, and the movie would be stronger if it ditched this plot point entirely in favor of the movie's narrower thematic goals.

The script also takes one of my least favorite adaptive routes in presenting various bits of action. In a book - especially nineteenth century literature - it's perfectly effective to have characters describe actions to the reader. Since it's a book, action by its very nature is all description, no matter who presents it. Film, however, is a visual medium, and it's rare filmmakers can get away with simply letting the characters describe action to the viewer. Jane Eyre tries this a few times with frustrating results; it works well enough, but there are certain bits of action that I'd love to actually see, rather than simply hear about - that is, after all, the point of film. It's particularly disappointing in the third act, when a climactic and devastating series of events is explained, rather than shown, and though I do love the film's impeccably crafted ending, it would be even stronger if we actually saw this horrifying moment.

Then again, in this film, that's the exception, not the rule. For the most part, director Cary Fukunaga utilizes the cinematic medium to its fullest. Not only are the locations gorgeous and the cinematography evocative, but Fukunaga spends plenty of time building a visual and aural atmosphere that is haunting and unsettling. Anyone who has read a book by the Bronte sisters can tell you how disturbing they can be, even by today's standards, yet adaptations of works like Jane Eyre or Wuthering Heights are often very tame. The same can't be said of this film - Fukunaga pushes the story's naturally dark nature as far as he can, and the results are spectacular. If anything, the film is slightly too dark at times, but that's hardly a complaint; much of the film's emotional resonance comes from how far Fukunaga pushes the atmosphere. The characters have to go through an awful lot throughout, and Fukunaga makes sure that when victories do come, they feel earned; especially at the end, this approach gives the film a poignant sense of melancholy, rather than the sorts of hollow emotions found in stark black-and-white 'happy' endings.

Dario Marianelli's score plays as big a part as any in building the film's strong atmosphere, but it performs its vital purpose so faithfully that by the end, it also winds up being one of the film's weaknesses. The music is beautiful and chilling, original and effective, but it mostly sticks to one particular mood. It evokes that mood incredibly well, but that mood is dark and grim and makes the film a bit too heavy at times. I was even thinking, about halfway through, that the film was starting to feel 'one-note,' until I realized that this was actually a problem with the score. Its one-note is beautiful, but the story calls for music with a more dynamic range. The score more or less fixes this problem at the very end, and I absolutely love the piece that closes the movie.

Still, the most important key to Jane Eyre's success is the acting, because this film features some truly outstanding performances that make the story resonate. Mia Wasikowska is an actress I've admired since her leading role in last year's Alice in Wonderland; her talents were wasted in that film, which prioritized Johnny Depp and sub-par CGI above everything else, but she proved herself immensely capable, and I found her use of dramatic subtlety very refreshing. The Kids Are All Right put her talents to much better use, and now in Jane Eyre, she proves herself one of the best young actresses of this generation. Again, subtlety is the key to this performance - the character simply isn't cut-out for a showy 'Oscar' role, and what Wasikowski does with a relatively limited emotional palette is astounding.

Much as I love Wasikowska, it's Michael Fassbender who steals the show as Mr. Rochester, Jane's love interest. He's a fascinating character to begin with, but Fassbender's performance is incredibly raw, open, and at times devastating (all of which make me very excited to see what he does with Magneto in the upcoming X-Men: First Class prequel). Wasikowski and Fassbender are as good an on-screen pair as I've ever seen, their chemistry palpable and their relationship endearing. Best of all, it's simply a joy to hear these two perform the fantastic dialogue that is, I assume, culled straight from the novel, throwing terrific lines at each other back-and-forth as though daring the other to do better. The same can be said of the rest of the cast, especially Judi Dench, making her requisite appearance in a role uncharacteristically tame of the usually fierce actress.

If anything, see Jane Eyre for the performances - if it had nothing else to offer, the acting alone would be worth the price of admission. But while certain aspects of the pacing and adaptation do hold the film back from greatness, there's a remarkable amount worth loving on display, whether you've read the book or not. Jane Eyre should absolutely serve as a template for how best to adapt classic works that have been through the wringer dozens of times before. As presented here, the story feels as fresh and meaningful as it must have been 154 years ago.

There have been several adaptations of “Jane Eyre” over the past few decades. The most memorable perhaps being Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine in 1944. But, now, Cary Fukunaga takes his turn directing this English film with Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) playing the lead role.

The film opens with Jane running from someone somewhere. Exhausted, cold and drenched, she is taken in under the caring wings of the St. John sisters (Holliday Grainger and Tamzin Merchant).

Then, through a series of flashbacks some short and some lengthy, her story unfolds from her past and back to the present.

It tells of the orphan being mistreated at Gateshead by Mrs. Reed, (Sally Hawkins, “Never Let Me Go”) and being confined to a charity school during holidays and others were ordered to shun her.

She perseveres through this, completes her schooling and is relocated to remote Thornfield as governess. Here she meets the hardly-ever-there, bitter owner Edward Fairfax Rochester (Michael Fassbender (“Jonah Hex”, “Inglourious Basterds”) who has no time or patients for anyone especially children.

Rochester tests Jane’s intelligence and seeks out her advice and company. But housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench, best known as ‘M’, on the Bond flicks) warns her of man’s intentions and especially those of good wealth such as Rochester.

As it turns out, Rochester is closely guarding a very long secret, but at the same time both are destined for fully committed passion to each other. Then guess what? His 15 year old secret surfaces.

Fassbender, who also will play Magneto in the upcoming “X Men: First Class” film, is no Welles but holds together very well here. It is Wasikowska, however, who carries the burden of the story and keeps us interested in this reboot classic. But was is necessary to retell this story almost a twentieth time? You decide.

“Jane Eyre” is directed by Cary Fukunaga and based on a novel-of course, by Charlotte Bronte and screenplay is credited to Moira Buffini. I also have to give a shout out to costume designer Michael O’ Connor, who had a wonderful staff. Their talent shows in this film.

“Jane Eyre” opens in limited theaters April 1, 2011 and is rated PG-13.

Terrible thuds are heard from overhead and the strangest moaning from the unlit nocturnal corridors. Is it the woeful wind against the rafters of Thornfield, the castle of Jane Eyre, or is there truth in the story of a spectral woman who roams the halls by night? But then, the heroine has other problems to ponder, especially the irascible nature of her master, Rochester, and the unexpected stirring of love between them.

Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre has been adapted many times for the screen, but few versions can rival director Cary Fukunaga's dark, artful rendition. Fukunaga was determined to capture the novel's gothic shadows on film; he highlights the deep moodiness of the landscape, the castle and Rochester himself, a man of mystery and dismal secrets. Screenwriter Moira Buffini was also determined to find a feminist subtext to the story. Poor Jane faces the likelihood of spinsterdom bravely, preferring independence to the shackles of loveless marriage but daring to hope for true intimacy. "I imagine things I'm powerless to execute," she says, describing her situation frankly.

Bronte's novel had the resonance of a dark but hopeful fairytale in a setting updated to her own time, 1840s England. The characters and situations are archetypal. Jane is an orphan from a wealthy family whose fortune was snatched from her by a wicked step aunt. She is bundled off to a sadistic boarding school where, despite being caned for tiny perceived infractions and being made to stand all day without food or water on the "pedestal of infamy," she is able to get a good education. Blessed with a bright and inquiring mind, she takes a position at Thornfield as governess to Adele, the delightful French ward of the castle's mysterious lord, Rochester. He is the arbitrary, brooding demigod of his realm, pursuing his ways in secret. Will a pot of gold await Jane at the end of many treacherous turns along the road?

Mia Wasikowska plays Jane with the quiet intelligence and polite but firm candor that earns the admiration of the abrupt Rochester (Michael Fassbender), whose haughty intellect is burdened by a guilty conscience. She steps around her life like a restless bird in a cage, pecking occasionally at the bars and waiting for the sky. Although the director is American, the production is largely British and the supporting cast is excellent in their costumed roles, especially Judi Dench as Mrs. Fairfax, the kindly mistress of the servants who warns Jane maternally about drawing too near to the lord of the manor. The gothic setting with its spooky castle amid a misty forest is conducive to a tale of horror, even one whose ghosts result from the wrongdoing of humanity.

Friday, April 1, 2011Jane Eyre (Limited Release Date: 3-11-2011) If seeing the poster, trailer, or TV spots for the new Jane Eyre prompted you to say something along the lines of, "Oh, finally, another Romantic Period Piece for Girls!," well... I'd consider curbing those expectations. More so than just about any other movie that I've seen of late, Jane Eyre gives a good deal of traction to the old cliche, "don't judge a book by its cover," but maybe that's only true for bozos like me who haven't read the book. They're all here; Jane, Rochester, Adele, and the rest of the gang are in attendance, but so is something dark and sinister, roaming the corridors of the eternally ill-lit haunted house that is Thornfield Hall.

For those who, like me, have managed to live under a rock long enough to avoid any knowledge of the plot of Charlotte Brontë's 1847 classic, here it is: After a childhood full of ill-treatment, and an education complete with the brutal whippings that these sorts of movies always unleash on their school children, Jane (Mia Wasikowska) finds employment at Thornfield Hall, where she will be a Governess, placed in charge of the learning and education of a little girl named Adele (Romy Settbon Moore). Just as Jane is becoming comfortable in her new station, the master of the house, Rochester (Michael Fassbender), arrives to check in on everything, and the two strike up a strange but undeniable connection. As Jane gains more and more of Rochester's trust, she witnesses one strange occurrence after another, all while being left to guess at his true feelings for her.

My sincerest apologies to anyone who doubts the comprehensive nature of this synopsis: I'm only summarizing the movie that I saw, and am quite sure that the novel could not be deconstructed in such broad strokes. The sad truth is that any review of the movie that I write won't have anything to do with the book or previous film adaptations, so if you're looking for ample comparisons, this might not be your webpage. What I do have, however, is a fresh perspective, and though I don't know close to, "being the real Jane and Rochester," Wasikowska and Fassbender actually are, I can tell you that their chemistry is not for want. Their chess-match conversations and loaded glances at one another make for a palpable connection between the two of them, even if it feels intentionally strained by age, station, formality, and Rochester's mysterious nature.

Wasikowska is an actress who I've enjoyed in spite of disliking her movie choices (Alice in Wonderland, The Kids Are All Right), so it's nice to see her in something that doesn't make me want to beat my head against a wall. As always, she brings a very peculiar and singular energy to the screen, this time lending Jane all of the gumption and self-respect that her character needs, keeping everyone at some distance, including the audience. Her silent strength always shines through her, the perfect challenge for Fassbender's dashing and damned Rochester. The rest of the cast is as strong as the leads, wimpy little Bell proving surprisingly effective as strong and stoic Rivers. Judi Dench even finds her way into the film (would she ever miss out on being in a corset drama? I think not!), giving a predictably effortless performance as Mrs. Fairfax. But what really needs be said about the cast, good as they are, is that they're not the true stars of the movie.

That title belongs to Director Cary Fukunaga, whose focus on the film's gothic tone sets his Jane Eyre apart from just about every other British Period Romance known to man. It's not without reason, I'm sure: Even in my minimal experience with this type of literature, I've run across my fair share of chilly undertones, but Fukunaga's commitment to them feels unique. We're talking actual horror movie scare tactics here: The weather around Thronfield Hall is almost always mercilessly downcast, windy and rainy, extended stretches of the movie are spent in darkness without anyone making a peep, and a thing or two even manages to pop out and frighten the audience. These seemingly cheap scares form a fascinating juxtaposition with the beauty of the story, not to mention the gorgeous score by Dario Marianelli and stunning visuals of Cinematographer Adriano Goldman.

Unfortunately for Fukunaga, his decision to take the spot-light is not without its drawbacks. As good as Wasikowska and Fassbender are, it's simply not as easy to care deeply about their romance when you're constantly worried that he might turn out to be a vampire. Yet again, I haven't read the book, but if there's supposed to be some level of uncertainty about how exactly we're supposed to want the story to end, then this version nails it. But if the glowing smiles of almost any girl I've ever seen talk about the book are to be trusted, I can't help but think Fukunaga's emphasis on spooky atmospherics might have come at the expense of a truly satisfying romance. But love is for sissies anyways. Jane Eyre is beautiful, eerie, and surprisingly fun, loaded with strong craft, writing, performances, and direction. It's the most thoughtfully constructed movie of the first Three months of the year, and best of all, you don't even have to leave you're man at home. Tell him he doesn't have to be afraid of Jane Eyre... or maybe he does.

In 1996, director Franco Zeffirelli made the most recent big-screen adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre—and for those keeping score at home, that’s just 15 years ago. Only a year after that, we got an A&E made-for-television version. And just five years ago, Jane Eyre became a BBC miniseries. Spinal Tap had fewer drummers than we’ve had Eyre adaptations over the past 20 years. Do we really need another visit to the misty moors of Charlotte Bronte’s Thornfield?

As reasonable a question as that may appear on the surface, it’s actually the wrong one. Studios love dusting off literary classics for many of the same reasons that theater companies dutifully deliver Shakespeare adaptations on a regular basis. First, and perhaps obviously, it’s good material. But, artists also can’t resist an opportunity to find a new way to approach timeless tales. And there’s also the simple reality that name brands put butts in seats. If you believe some of the same economic thinking that gives us Yogi Bear, Speed Racer and The Smurfs doesn’t also apply to Jane Eyre, you’re kidding yourself. The film industry doesn’t give us what we need; it gives us what it thinks it can sell us.

So when director Cary Joji Fukunaga (Sin Nombre) and screenwriter Moira Buffini (Tamara Drewe) come to a project like Jane Eyre, they have the chance to carve out their own interpretation—but only within a framework that won’t alienate those who know what they expect from that name brand. Structurally, they shake things up by opening with Jane (Mia Wasikowska) fleeing from Thornfield and being taken in by St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters. Most of the familiar story then unfolds in flashback: the orphan Jane’s childhood in the care of her cold-hearted aunt (Sally Hawkins), her experiences in a harshly disciplinarian boarding school, moving on once she reaches young adulthood to become governess for the young ward of Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender) at Thornfield, and the evolving relationship between Jane and Edward, even as the mysteries of Rochester’s past threaten to keep them apart.

Any feature-length adaptation of Jane Eyre faces the same what-to-keep/what-to-ditch problem facing any adaptation of a sprawling literary work. Buffini opts to condense Jane’s childhood into around 15 minutes of screen time, which allows little opportunity to see the experiences that build Jane’s independent-minded worldview. It’s a gamble on the centrality of the Jane/Rochester relationship—and if it doesn’t work, there’s nothing left.

Fortunately, it basically works. Fassbender’s take on Rochester is considerably less overtly brooding than many other interpretations; he may have dark secrets, but there’s also a playfulness and passion to his interactions with Jane that make him more than a grim, tortured figure. Wasikowska, meanwhile, actually looks like the simple teenager of the novel, and underplays Jane’s plain-spoken interactions with Rochester. This isn’t a romantic connection that emerges apparently out of nowhere. It’s easy to recognize a man who’s unused to someone who sparks his curiosity, and a young woman who’s unused to her unconventional manner being respected rather than chastised.

So if the romance works, what’s the problem? It’s that so much energy is devoted to that element of the story, almost nothing else works. The opening sequence of Jane fleeing Thornfield briefly suggests a pace that will allow scenes to breathe, but the rest of the film often feels like a mad dash to hit key plot points. Jane’s other pivotal relationships—Rivers, her doomed schoolgirl friend, the Thornfield housekeeper Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench)—are glossed over almost entirely. And Fukunaga can’t quite seem to settle on a tone that will remain consistent—at times going for a hushed ghost story, at other times a minimalist realism.

Devotees of a great literary work are rarely going to be satisfied with a truncated feature-film version, picking at every alteration and omission. But this Jane Eyre reminds us that the specifics of the condensation are less relevant than what that process does to a story that feels vital and expansive on the page: It results in something that generally feels thin and shallow. Unless you’re going to go the miniseries route, there’s almost no way around that dilemma. It really doesn’t matter how many adaptations of Jane Eyre we get, as long as the ones we do get actually feel like Jane Eyre.

11363583-jane-eyre-movie-poster-01 Last Friday, my friend and I went to the Jane Eyre 1:30 matinee with about 3 dozen retired women. Going to a film like Jane Eyre during off-hours introduces you to an odd & immediate fellowship; strangers' unsought confessions ("I love Jane Eyre so much, I even went to see Jane Eyre the Musical!") are met with sympathy, rather than alarm.

As to the movie, it was a solid adaptation. The film's poetically shot (director Cary Fukunaga is also a cinematographer). We both liked Mia Wasikowska's Jane, and have new obsessions with Michael Fassbender. The supporting cast was excellent (Judi Dench! Sally Hawkins!) and I loved some of the updated dialogue.

At the same time, we were bursting with criticisms--simply, it was too short, too much was cut, and even though we were prepared for that, we did not like how the cutting was handled (see below the cut for more detail). But we are totally buying the DVD.

Here's the trailer, with a spoilery mini-critique after the break:

**SPOILERS**

Hark a vagrant brontes

At right: If you haven't read Kate Beaton's riff on the Brontës, do it.

Before I went, I'd heard some rumblings about the two lead actors' lack of chemistry. Having seen the film, I don't agree. Or at least, I don't blame the actors for the missing romance.

I blame more writing/directing/editing decisions that made the central romance less effective and cohesive than it could've been. First, it wasn't properly developed at the beginning; we have two intellectual sparring matches (both exceptionally well-done) between the leads, but no scenes demonstrating a growing tenderness between the two. Then, boom! Rochester's bed goes up in flames, and he puts the moves on Jane. The result is that Rochester seems less lovestruck and more predatory (like he needed any help there).

The handling of Blanche Ingram was muddled; I got little sense of her or why Jane would feel threatened by her. One scene's dialogue was changed ("my lovely one"), further undercutting Blanche's role & Rochester's fuckwittage. Finally, the ending reconciliation (one of the best parts) was almost completely eliminated. Even with time being an issue, I don't understand that artistic decision at all. But I'm still buying the DVD.

"Poor, obscure, plain and little" is how the heroine of "Jane Eyre" describes herself. The latest film of Charlotte Bronte's moody Gothic romance is anything but. There is not a drab image or a middling performance in the piece. The freewheeling adaptation drops needless scenes and spurs the story ahead with galloping momentum.

From the very first shot, this new version frames Jane (Mia Wasikowska, Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland") as a character of mystery and drama . We meet her as a young woman on the run in a rural downpour. What peril she is fleeing is unspecified. Jane is taken in by a dour young clergyman (Jamie Bell), and nursed back to health by his sisters whose Christian charity and curiosity about their new friend run neck-and-neck. Jane is many scenes into her recovery and subsequent adventures before the story circles back to her breathless flight, explaining all.

It's a bold approach, but one that honors Bronte's favorite literary gimmick. She was a master of generating suspense by dropping clues and hints while withholding the secrets we're dying to discover. This flashback-filled adaptation, written by Moira Buffini and directed by Cary Fukunaga, does her proud.

As Jane moves from her loveless childhood into the manor house governess position that was every Victorian orphan girl's glass ceiling, Wasikowska masters the screen actor's magic trick of transfixing our attention while seemingly doing nothing. Her excruciating beauty is tamped down here, but when it blossoms she is a pre-Raphaelite dream in the flesh.

As the cold, taunting master of the house, Mr. Rochester, Michael Fassbender has ice in his smile but fire in his eyes. When he invites Jane to his fireside for fencing match evening conversations, his tone is brusque and challenging yet almost intimate. He is decadent, subtly evil, unreachable yet irresistible. Jane, wise beyond her years yet naive about certain dark aspects of human nature, opens her heart. And then terrible truths come crashing down, impelling that tear-stained dash across a rainswept Yorkshire moor. Fukunaga wrings every ounce of passion, fury and pain out of the tale.

Our heroine may be "poor, obscure, plain and little" -- but that's nothing that a piping-hot shepherd's pie won't cure!​We had this idea that we'd go watch Jane Eyre and then eat Jamaican food.

We were, admittedly, feeling a bit postmodern. Since we last spent much time with Jane Eyre, we'd read Wide Sargasso Sea and been lectured at college about the fact that there are perspectives beyond those of Dead White People (even dead female ones like Charlotte Bronte). We now know that the half-caste madwoman in the attic is less a monster than a human, worthy of our empathy. We know the idea of marrying the boss is a schoolgirl fantasy, not a good career plan. And so we thought we'd watch Cary Fukunaga's new adaptation of the classic novel, starring Mia Wasikowska, and then we'd shake off the chill of the Gothic by eating jerk chicken and having a good ironic laugh.

We had forgotten that it's impossible to keep an ironic distance from Jane Eyre -- especially this Jane Eyre. (We had also forgotten, sadly, that St. Louis' best Jamaican restaurant, DePalm Tree, is closed on Sundays.)

But we'll get to food in a minute. First the movie. Fukunga's flick, currently playing at the Tivoli, is remarkably faithful to Bronte's book. Jane is indeed poor, obscure, plain and little -- first boxed around by her detestable Reed cousins, then sent to the dreadful Lowood boarding school, where chums die en masse from typhus and, one suspects, starvation. Then she goes to Thornfield -- to work for Mr. Rochester and discover her destiny.

Thank God, that destiny, in the form of the broodingly romantic master of the house himself (played here by Michael Fassbender), reciprocates. "It feels as though I had a string tied here under my left rib where my heart is, tightly knotted to you in a similar fashion," he marvels, and our heart, too, stirred.

And yet there is, of course, that madwoman in the attic. The wild thunderstorm that follows Jane's first kiss to Mr. Rochester in the film foreshadows the inevitable: The crazy Creole wife must attack. The marriage must be thwarted. Jane must flee in a bout of Christian conscience. And by the time Miss Eyre and her Rochester are united at last, he's both blind and without a mansion.

That all sounds silly in summary, but both in the book and on the big screen, it's utterly compelling. You feel, watching Fukunga's flick, that this plain little governess and this damaged man really will find happiness together -- and you believe that, when their souls cry out for each other across hundreds of miles of windswept moors, they really manage, somehow, to hear each other. There wasn't a dry eye in the house after the matinee we attended.

So there would be no irony in our post-movie dinner. Indeed, after months of gray winter skies in St. Louis and darker skies on screen, we were beginning to feel like Jane as she made her long journey across the moors: We would have given our last shilling for some good British comfort food.

And so it was off to the Scottish Arms. This Central West End British restaurant will happily serve you something exquisite, like a vegetable terrine or grilled sea scallops. But we were in the mood for the basics: a cup of hot tea, a crisply fried fish-and-chip combo, a shepherd's pie.

The pie was served in a cast-iron skillet, a perfect dish of pungently stewed lamb and carrots topped with mashed potatoes and cheese. Each forkful brought contented sighs; we were so distracted by its rich goodness that we barely managed to swipe a bite of our dining companion's haddock.

Ah, yes, when it came to that shepherd's pie on that cold St. Louis Sunday, it was an ending worthy of Jane Eyre:

Charlotte Bronte’s haunting Victorian tale of love and loss is seeing its umpteenth version with this new vision of the classic book. This time out, Alice in Wonderland’s Mia Wasikowska is the the brooding Jane, an abused girl that makes it out of her hellish upbringing only to have her heart broken by the virtues of her day, and Inglourious Basterds’ Michael Fassbender as her employer hiding a terrible secret that will deeply hurt them both.

The story itself is too well known for the production to be original, but I think that possibly the filmmakers wanted to create a rendition of the story for those not familiar with the original book or movies and who have a clean slate to work upon. In this case, the movie is extremely successful. The screenplay is well enough constructed as to allow the viewer a different spin on the same subject.

Much like the recent Pride and Prejudice, magnificently directed by Joe Wright, the movie attempts to use a mix of story, sight and sound to create a breathtaking two hours of entertainment. The ingredients were all there to create another Victorian masterpiece, but unfortunately the pieces of the puzzle didn’t fit together well. Each part works by itself. The acting is superb by the extremely talented cast and the scene direction works well for the picture. Also of note is the lovely cinematography by Adriano Goldman (City of Men) whose use of shadow and fog combined with the beauty of the English countryside deserve recognition.

But where the film doesn’t work is that a lovely score by Oscar winning composer Dario Marianelli is buried beneath the other layers. Rather than opening it up and allowing it to breath, the music sits in the background, stifled and censored. I sensed there was a good score, and therefore bought the CD the next day to see if I was correct. What I heard was a gorgeous piece of music that really could have been the star of the film. Imagine Pride and Prejudice without the iconic scene where Keira Knightly stands at the edge of the cliff with the wind and the music blowing wildly. For me, these kinds of moments can make a film and leave a lasting impression on my heart and mind. Jane Eyre could have had wonderful moments such as this, and was in possession of all of the right ingredients, but chose not to follow the recipe. B+

It’s well-documented that I’m something of an Eyre-o-phile, so I was very excited to hear about this year’s film adaptation of the book, and as soon as it turned up in my local theater, I bought myself a ticket.

From the very beginning, it’s clear that this Jane Eyre is not your standard high costume drama adaptation. Although it has all the trappings of the classic period piece treatment — sumptuous costumes, gorgeous locations, and lots of ominous atmospherics — there’s something about the way this film is put together that separates it from all the other adaptations I’ve seen.

For one thing, director Cary Fukunaga made the interesting choice not to tell the story in chronological order. Instead of beginning with Jane’s tormented childhood at Gateshead and tortuous adolescence at Lowood, this Jane Eyre picks up as Jane is leaving Thornfield and tells the story as a series of flashbacks. It’s an interesting choice, but one that poses some problems. Much of the drama of the later events in the book hangs on what has come before, so that if you were watching the movie with no knowledge of the source material, I feel like it would lack a certain amount of impact.

The question of the source material is one that plagued my viewing of this adaptation generally. Although it’s by no means the worst offender in terms of fidelity to the original, it did take some rather strange liberties with details from the book. For instance, the film includes the subplot about Jane’s rich uncle in Madeira, but neglects to mention that the Rivers family, with whom she shares her fortune, are revealed to be her relatives. This seems an odd omission, since it wouldn’t be too time-consuming to incorporate and seems fairly central to Jane’s character. Although her inheritance serves a structural purpose of making her Rochester’s equal in means, what matters to Jane is that she is no longer an orphan without any family.

There is something very spare about the film, generally. Perhaps it’s because I’ve been spoiled by lengthy BBC minseries, but it felt trimmed down to me. Even the editing seemed somehow spare, never lingering too long on any one shot.

In other ways, though, it’s a very sumptuous and atmospheric production. The cinematography is spectacular, and uses darkness to great advantage. One of my movie-land pet peeves is when scenes set at night or in the dark are better lighted than most rooms in my house. Here, the dark is actually dark, sometimes revealing only the merest sliver of a character’s face. The use of light, too, is wonderful, Mia Wasikowksa’s beautiful face often illuminated like a marble statue.

Wasikowska is very good as Jane, melding that teenage diffidence she displayed in The Kids Are Alright with a staid, otherworldly stoicism. Her chemistry with Michael Fassbender’s smoldering Rochester is palpable, but, like a lot of aspects of this version, I didn’t feel like their relationship had quite enough time to really develop. If their romance isn’t carefully handled, it can seem like a nonsensical love-at-first-sight conceit, and it makes no sense why Jane would put up the Byronic ridiculousness that Rochester perpetrates. What’s missing in this version, I think, is not the sexual attraction between the two, but the sense that they really relate to one another on an equal intellectual level.

There’s a lot I did like about this version, though (besides the phenomenal visuals). Writer Moira Buffini has a great ear for language, and while I’m not a card-carrying member of the period correctness police, the dialogue felt very appropriate to the era. I also appreciated the little references made to folklore, which helped to keep the tone of subtle strangeness that pervaded the film. Although it wasn’t quite as Gothic as could be hoped, it was eerie, but in a somewhat unexpected way. Fukunaga manages to evoke the uncanny without relying on too many obvious horror-ish tricks, creating a more naturalistic sense of unease than one commonly encounters in spooky stories.

Ultimately, this film version of Jane Eyre does what television miniseries adaptations can never manage to do, which is to portray the story with the style and visual flair that only a full motion picture budget can provide. But at the same time, it also lacks what makes longer adaptations so satisfying, which is the pleasure of in-depth, detailed storytelling. It offers a refreshing take on a familiar story, but in doing so fails to fulfill some expectations that come with the territory.

Since the original novel published in 1847, written by Charlotte Brontë, has been made into many movies and TV mini series. (The IMDB site shows 22 lists of them). Apparently, it has been more than 100 years as the first movie was out in 1910.

<Jane Eyre> is a biographic story about a woman with a strong independent heart. It is a story reflecting the English society in early 1800′s. Moreover, it is a great romance story.

The most recent version of the movie looks like focusing on portraying an “independent” woman. In other words, I felt the movie lacks “romantic” side a bit. The chemistry between Jane and Mr. Rochester could have been much better, although Mia Wasikowska did great acting.

I was almost glad to see “You transfix me… quite” “What am I to do, then?” lines were not omitted.

Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax) and Jamie Bell (St. John Rivers) of <Billy Elliot> performed significant parts to maintain the quality of this movie, in my opinion.

I’ve read somewhere that the movie <Jane Eyre> released in 1943 is considered as the best one so far, where Orson Welles took the role of Mr. Rochester. I would love to find this old version and watch this story again.

April 2, 2011Design Inspiration: Jane Eyre (2011)The exquisite movie poster for Jane EyreI finally made it to the theater to see the latest adaptation of Jane Eyre. Friends, I am much more an Austen girl versus a Brontë girl, but give me a period English film and I am at the theater regardless of my literary preferences. The day was perfect to see such a film - blustery and moody, dark clouds dispersed with stray lines of sunlight. I felt as though I was traversing an English moor as I crossed the Mall to get to the Landmark Theater in downtown DC.

I think the film did a service to Brontë's novel while casting it in a new, interesting light. Mia Wasikowsa does justice to the role of Jane -- being both reserved and revealing of her inner passions. Michael Fassbender as Rochester...well, let's just say I really enjoyed watching him smolder on screen in this role. Their passion was evident and well-portrayed. And Judy Dench was just adorable as Mrs. Fairfax.

Jane and Mrs. Fairfax looking lovely with their lace fashionsI adored the film's soundtrack by Dario Marianelli, which perfectly captured the mood of the film. The set and costume design were spot on, and I was so inspired by their use of lace -- curtains, dress embellishments. It made me consider how I can use lace in my own apartment in tribute to this fine English tradition. I could not find an image of the scene where Jane looks out a window decorated with the most exquisite lace curtains, but it was in that moment that I found inspiration.

The film also had the most beautiful flowers -- violets, cherry blossoms, and others -- a true tribute to an English spring. A floral influence is a heavy theme for my apartment decoration plan.

Jane and Rochester flirt amongst the blooms

Images found here, here, and here (copyright by Focus Features).Marginalia by Emily at 7:59 PM

Mia Wasikowska is completely perfect as Jane Eyre - from expression to costume - and Michael Fassbender wonderfully captures Rochester's romantic darkness. The chemistry between the two is breathtaking (and whoever knew that collarbones could be so erotic?). The movie is filled with passion and tension and gothic creepiness, all executed with impeccable timing.

I think my one - and only! - complaint was that I did not like the portrayal of St. John Rivers by Jamie Bell, and I felt that the time Jane spent with the Rivers was underdeveloped and even rushed.

The movie was a brilliant interpretation of one of my favorite books and, I believe, deserving of an Oscar...or three.

I was very lucky to have had an opportunity to view "Jane Eyre" because it's being released as a "slow roll out." It opened in 4 markets (NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston) on March 11. It is now being released to art film theaters, and then, depending on box office sales, may go to wide release. (You can see the list of theaters HERE.)

Apparently, this "slow roll out" technique was used for "The King's Speech," the winner of the 2011 Oscar for Best Picture. Perhaps this means good things are in store for "Jane Eyre."Labels: Classic Lit, Movies

The film of Charlotte Bronte’s (aka Currer Bell) "Jane Eyre", from Focus and BBC (and director Cary Fukunaga), has the look and feel of a PBS “Masterpiece Theater” program. It looks like the kind of film you would show in a high school English class along with a video worksheet (or, reading quizzes for the book). The book, written in the first person, is considered an exploration of the tenuous balance between individualism and conventional social morality, between religion and self-righteousness. ("Jane: Do you know where the wicked go?") There’s a lot here for English themes.

There are plenty of summaries on the web, about how Jane grows up an orphan and winds up as a governess, and finds out that her “employer”, when about to marry her, hid a terrible secret, which had resulted from his being deceived too. Then more social justice occurs at the end when she finds her true identity.

But what’s interesting about the film is a certain visual bleakness, even with the opening scene of perpendicular paths meeting in a heath along the English coast. (Somehow the beginning reminds me of our reading Thomas Hardy’s “The Return of the Native” in senior English in high school. It also reminds me of the English teacher who sponsored our high school chess club back in the late 1950s; he used to say he taught “an appreciation of literature”, while giving rather hard and picky content tests.)

Jane’s “lifestyle” never improves all that much. We’re always reminded of the naturalistic, hardscrabble life, even for the gentrified. We see a painting of a woman with hairy legs, not realizing it’s a female form until the camera moves up. We see Jane rescue her employer from a carelessly set fire, a foreshadowing of worse to come. We see how mental illness was handled in pre-Victorian England with Rochester’s unfortunate first wife. We listen to the moralizing Mrs. Fairfax (Judi Dench) who will do herself and the manor in. We see that home safety was not a priority in a world where candles and kerosene provided power (but trees couldn't damage power lines during storms).

Australian Mia Wasikowska carries the lead as Jane with some modesty, Michael Fassbender is sharp-edged as Rochester, and Jamie Bell (“Billy Elliot”) is the very kindly Lord Rivers.

Focus’s official site is here.

The novel had been made into a four-part TV miniseries by the BBC back in 2006. It probably lends itself better to television because of its sprawling, episodic nature; the film seems a bit rushed.

Mia WasikowskaI just arrived home from seeing the new Jane Eyre movie.

Michael FassbenderThe Good: The actress, Mia Wasikowska, physically is one of the best cast; she’s young, small and plain--not ugly, not too pretty but appropriately plain. The set design and scenery were fabulous. I particularly appreciate that they didn’t over-light the interior scenes. There was also a very good sense of time transition done through the changing of the seasons.

The Somewhat Less Good: The actor, Michael Fassbender, who plays Rochester did grow on my as the film progressed but he’s not my favorite. In all fairness, the development of his character was definitely hindered by the script.

The BAD!: It was rather like watching Cliff Notes, and sometimes, Cliff Notes that had some unstapled, dropped on the ground and put back in the wrong order. To condense the story into two hours, huge bits were lift out which also left out the motivation behind much of the characters actions. Scenes where put in a different order from the book. And the ending…okay, I shan’t talk about it.

All that said, I didn’t hate it. See it in the theater for the visual impact of the scenery (the entire film was actually shot in England (Derbyshire, Oxfordshire, and ……) Judy Dench is always wonderful if underutilized in this. Otherwise, my recommendation would be to wait for the DVD.

One funny note: In the Lady's room after the movie, several of us were comparing versions when one woman ask a questions "Where was Heathcliff?" After a small, stunned silence we explained that Heathcliff is from Wuthering Heights; a different Bronte sister's novel. [sigh]

Timothy Dalton and Zelah ClarkThinking back on the versions I have seen--most of them--my favorite for adherance to the book would be the version with Timothy Dalton.

Toby Stephens and Ruth WilsonFor casting,

1st place: Toby Stephens (left) as Rochester with Mia Wasikowska as best Jane.

3rd Place (or close 2nd): Zelah Clark who played opposite Dalton although neither she nor Ruth Wilson didn't really look 19 years old. Unfortunately, after Stephens and Dalton, I don't really have a 3rd place Rochester--maybe Orson Wells.

So I want to know...have you seen the new Jane Eyre movie? If so, tell me what you thought. Which version is your favorite? Who is your favorite Rochester? Who is your favorite Jane Eyre?

Last of all, a quick story. After seeing the movie today, I stopped in the lady's room. Several of us got into a conversation about the film and which version was our favorite. Another lady interrupted to ask a question. "Where was Heathcliff"? After a moment of rather stunned silence, we delicately told her that Heathcliff was from "Wuthering Heights" and by a different Bronte sister. Oh dear. Posted by LJ Roberts at 8:33 PM

I may not remember everything from when I read Jane Eyre as a young English major, but I don’t remember it being so lifeless. While I can understand that the filmmakers need to abbreviate certain parts (such as most of Jane’s early life as an orphan) in order to fit the important parts into the span of a movie, you’d think that it would make things move along quicker instead of being as glacial as this movie feels. When Jane (played by Mia Wasikowska, the recently grown up Alice in Tim Burton’s Wonderland film), the governess for the wealthy yet hard-hearted Mr. Rochester (played by soon-to-be Magneto in X-Men: First Class, Michael Fassbender) falls in love with her boss, it’s seems sudden and almost ridiculous because in the film, it seems like they have barely met.

The colour palette is very muted, with mostly grey-blues and blacks in everything from the clothing to the walls and floors. All the sets seem authentic, yet dilapidated and slightly worn down. Perhaps it was all meant to mirror Rochester’s emotional landscape, or the harshness of the English moors, but it definitely didn’t make the film more interesting to watch. Add to that a very moody violin that was playing in the background throughout many scenes. To me the music was actually kind of distracting. Even the climactic scene from the novel where Jane flees from Rochester after learning his big secret (which is the scene that actually opens the film) was cold and dreary. I remember how tragic and emotional that part was in the book, but I didn’t feel much of that on screen.

I don’t know that either lead actors can be blamed. When they actually get some juicy interaction, they make the dialogue work and you can feel some embers between them, but that didn’t occur much. Wasikowska was pretty good at expressing a glimmer of emotion here and there with only slight changes in her face, but for me it was too little too late. Maybe it’s just that I’m so used to the Hollywood treatment of English literary classics (mostly of Jane Austen stuff) that I’m expecting a certain style that director Cary Fukunaga just wasn’t going for. All I know is that if anyone with my sensibilities is trying to use this movie to get away with not reading the novel, they’ll probably have a much more negative idea of this classic than they should. (3 out of 5)

Based on a novel written in 1847 by Charlotte Brontë, Jane Eyre follows the story of a young head strong girl; Jane (Mia Wasikowska) from the home of her spiteful, and generally disagreeable aunt, through a harsh boarding school upbringing and ultimately to fortune and a wedding to the Lord Edward Rochester (Michael Fassbender). Along the way Jane is faced with animosity, hardship, and often feelings of isolation as she tries to make her way a sa women in Victorian England.

My thought:

Now I must admit that my first impressions of the film were mixed. While the story was powerful the plot progressed slowly, especially in the beginning of the film. Between the relatively non-descript plot, and the constant flashes which seemed to jump back and forth to different times of Jane’s life I found the beginning of the movie difficult to follow. However, after the first quarter of the film things do become clearer. What emerged was a touching story of resilience, perseverance, and ultimately vindication. My overall opinion is that Jane Eyre is a powerful and touching narrative. With a sort of dry wit, that serves to lighten the mood at just the right moments in the otherwise serious and often heart wrenching story. The acting is excellent, and the dialog true to its Victorian “name sake” novel. Actress Mia Wasikowska does a phenomenal job portraying the strong willed, but often quiet and subdued Jane. And a great job of conveying both the outer struggles of Jane’s childhood and the inner struggle Jane is faced with in dealing with the limits Victorian society imposed on her inner strength and ambition. Indeed the whole cast delivers an award worthy performance and through their talent, helps to transport the viewer back to the 19th century England in which the story takes place. For my final words I would just like to say that as a fan of these types of Period films I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Well produced, with a timeless story to tell and True to its roots as a 19th century novel, Jane Eyre is a great flick for anyone with a passion for artistic, period films.

I'm going to level with you: I love costume dramas. Now, I don't love them as a favorite genre; I consider them a way of life, an art form to study. Give me Austen, Dickens, any Bronte and a day to bask in the glory of the film, and I am the happiest girl in the world. I own versions from several different decades of all of my favorites, including both the 1943 and 2006 adaptations of Jane Eyre. I'm not going to brag or anything (since I haven't expressed my geekiness fully), but I consider myself an expert on heritage films. I took several classes in college on film adaptations, and it only fueled my passion.

You can imagine how incredibly geeked up I was to find out about this newest version of Charlotte Bronte's oeuvre. It didn't seem like it was ever going to come to my city, but a little internet sleuthing and a 30 minute drive is a small price to pay for such a glorious movie.

Yes, I used the word glorious. Because I LOVED this version. Had I not been on the other side of town with errands to run, I would have bought another ticket and stayed to absorb the beauty of this gem all over again. The scenery? The costumes? The acting? The dame herself, Judi? I can go on and on, ad nauseum. I was worried about a 2 hour version of JE since my favorite version that tells the whole story is a whopping 4 hours. Can a feature film contain a story that is normally produced in miniseries format? This one absolutely does.

Is the story condensed? Yes, of course. Are some complicated details smoothed over? Understandably. One notable exclusion is the face that St. John Rivers, Jane's pseudo rebound post broody Rochester, is Jane's cousin. Yes, first cousin. And, I understand why the filmmakers decided to omit that part; it's shocking to modern audiences and another complication in the last 15 minutes of the film. To be honest, I didn't really miss it.

Look at the chemistry in the picture above. Can you stand it? Michael Fassbender's tender interpretation of a normally steely Edward Rochester was refreshing and immensely satisfying. Mia Wasikowska was stoic as strong-willed Jane, a wonderfully feminist character in a decidedly unfeminist time. Mrs. Fairfax's role was amped up to give Judi Dench some room to showcase her considerable acting chops, and it was perfect. She was warm and maternal, yet she conveyed an array of emotions with just the shift of her eyebrow. An utterly fantastic performance that rounded out a strong cast.

At times a bit spooky (director Cary Fukunaga drew from the novel's gothic elements) and and many times romantic, this newest adaptation of Jane Eyre joins 27 other films, and, unlike some of the more forgettable versions, it will stand the test of time.

In case you couldn’t tell by the title, I went and saw the new Jane Eyre movie yesterday.

Oh.

My.

Brontë.

Can I just?! Look at that chemistry. Look at it.

Okay, so, because this is a long-winded and self-centered blog, I believe it calls for BACK STORY about Jane Eyre and me. It is a fascinating and wonderful story. If you’re into that kind of thing, please proceed.

My very good and awesome friend Beth Neely was the first person to recommend Jane Eyre to me. I listened to her and read it because she is wise and we are basically reading twins and she knew I would like it, so how could I not listen to her? I’m pretty sure I read it freshman year of high school, because I distinctly remember reading it instead of participating in P.E. And really, my time was much better spent doing almost anything else, let alone reading a literary masterpiece, so whatever. It was kind of one of the first long pieces of literature that I’d tried my hand at, so it involved a fair bit of struggling and it took me like four months or something to read it. I remember liking it but being mildly confused at the same time. I do, however, remember the distinct creepiness and the emphasis on Jane and Mr. Rochester’s plain features, and St. John’s creepy advances. And I also remember the fun Beth and I had watching the 2006 BBC miniseries.

She invited me over after I had finished reading it and we watched it together. We also had a mini tea party thing to go along with it, because we like to pretend that we are British and frankly it’s unfair that we’re not. On the menu was tea, of course, along with raspberry cordial (due to our mutual love of Anne of Green Gables), cheese crumpets, little cucumber sandwiches, and some other miscellaneous tea snacks. This becomes more important later.

We had a grand old time of it, watching the show and feasting on delicious tea things. It’s like four hours long though, so we kept moving about on the furniture and keeping ourselves entertained and what not. Unfortunately at this time, one of the installations at Beth’s apartment was the evil sky chair. A sky chair is basically a swing that people pretend is a chair. It is actually just a swing that you screw into your ceiling, and if that doesn’t sound safe it’s because it’s TOTALLY NOT. I have many stories with this sky chair that involve near death, and luckily for you this happens to be one of them. So at one point, Beth was on the sky chair, after our copious consumption of cheese crumpets. After a little while, she got up. I should have recognized the slightly green tinge of her complexion. I should have noticed how she rushed to the cold raspberry cordial. But I suppose, as they say, hind sight is 20/20. I got it into mind that it was my turn on the sky chair now, and with a stomach gurgling around with cheese crumpets and tea and little cucumber sandwiches, I climbed into that thing. And I swung and swung and swung.

You can probably see where this is going.

The nausea crept up slowly. Have you ever heard about how people cook lobsters? They put them in a cool pot and then turn the burner on so they don’t even know what’s hitting them once the heat goes up and suddenly they’re boiling and the next thing you know they’re on your plate. In this scenario, I am the lobster and the sky chair is the pot that was slowly boiling me. By the time I got out of that contraption, I was nearly incapacitated. I remember that walking seemed like a really bad idea, because I was sure that the floor was going to fall away. And also that I was going to vomit.

Luckily I didn’t vomit, but I did feel completely terrible. To this day I cannot think or say the words “cheese crumpets” without a wave of nausea falling over me. As you can imagine, writing this post has been a bit of a challenge. This is basically all that I remember from our Jane Eyre viewing session, which is a shame because I remember thinking it was a pretty good movie before I was distracted by the evil sky chair. And that’s pretty much my Jane Eyre story.

Last night I was super excited that I was getting to see a new adaption of this story that I had a lot of good/memorable times with. I was a little bummed that I wasn’t able to see it for the first time with Beth Neely, but hopefully we’ll be able to see it together over the summer. Because it was SO FREAKING GOOD.

That was basically all I could say after the movie was over – “It was so good. It was SO GOOD. SO GOOD. Don’t you guys think it was SO GOOD?!” And I may have clapped and flailed like I little fangirl when the credits started rolling. I will neither confirm nor deny. Like I said, I didn’t have many memories of a lot of the details of the book when I sat down to watch this movie. I’m also not really a book adaptation purist anyway (which is a post for another day) so I came into it pretty open minded. As the movie unfolded, I began remembering so much of what I had felt the first time I read the novel. The tragedy of Jane’s childhood, her clever personality, the mysterious and frustrating but still so freaking alluring character of Mr. Rochester – I felt that the essence of the story was captured really well. The movie was cast so brilliantly, and Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender had such great chemistry and the tension in their relationship was portrayed so well. It occurred to me that the fact that I think their relationship is so sexy probably accounts for a lot of my social deficiencies. But seriously, I was just enthralled with this movie. It has really gotten under my skin and I want to see it again and it was beautifully filmed and acted and written and… I can’t even. I just can’t even. I want to own it immediately so I can watch it on repeat for hours.

So there you have it. Mr. Rochester is dead sexy. And that’s about all I have to say.